the pecos river in new mexico new mexico interstate stream commission presented to the pecos river...
TRANSCRIPT
The Pecos River in New Mexico
New Mexico Interstate Stream CommissionPresented to the Pecos River Water Quality Coalition
October 21, 2011
The 1948 Pecos Compact
• Signed by TX and NM after years of contentious negotiations
• Principal tenet of Compact is that NM “shall not deplete by man’s activities the flow of the Pecos River at the NM-TX state line” below the “1947 condition”
The Compact &
Decree Require • Deliveries to
Texas calculated on a calendar-year basis
• Use of the Supreme Court River Master’s Manual & decisions
• Rapid “repayment” of any net shortfalls
Pecos Compact Compliance
• NM unable to meet Compact delivery requirements– Large factor is declining base flow
gains to river – Caused by increased groundwater
pumping in Roswell Basin• NM under-delivers to TX roughly
10,000 AF/yr mid-1950s to mid-1980s
19051906190719081909191019111912191319141915191619171918191919201921192219231924192519261927192819291930193119321933193419351936193719381939194019411942194319441945194619471948194919501951195219531954195519561957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920100
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Year
Ba
se
In
flo
w (
KA
F/Y
)Base Inflow to the Pecos River
Acme to Artesia
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
Pecos River Cumulative Delivery Departures from Obligation 1952 - 2010
Cumulative Departure Curve
Year
Dep
artu
re in
Th
ou
san
d o
f A
F
Paid $14 Million for failure to comply
Purchased $88 Million in water rights & leases
(1992 - 2008)
Consensus Agreement
adopted
99.6 TAF
Pecos Compact Compliance
• TX sues NM in Supreme Court in 1974
• NM loses, pays $14 million fine and• Must now abide by Court’s 1988
Amended Decree– Federal River Master oversees all
deliveries to TX– No net delivery shortfall allowed– Rapid repayment required if shortfall
occurs– Non-compliance likely result: loss of
state control over its water resources
Pecos Compact CompliancePost-Decree
• NM purchases and leases over $30 million in water rights during 1990s to meet Compact/Decree terms
• NM stays in compliance, but barely• Drought of early 2000s looked to
push NM into shortfall• Dire conditions brought water
interests together to start developing what would become the Pecos Settlement
Settlement Chronology
• July 2001 – Anticipating a net delivery shortfall to Texas, ISC sets up an ad-hoc committee to develop:– a short-term plan to avoid a net
shortfall in 2001– a long-term plan to avoid future priority
calls
Settlement Chronology – Cont’d
• March 25, 2003: Pecos Settlement Signed by all Parties– State Engineer– Interstate Stream Commission– The United States (DOI –BOR)– Carlsbad Irrigation District– Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy
District
Settlement Objectives
• Permanent compliance with the Pecos River Compact and Decree
• Increased and stable water supply for Carlsbad Irrigation District
• Reduced likelihood of a priority call on the Pecos River
• Bring basin back into hydrologic balance
Key Hydrologic Elements
• Retire up to 6,000 acres of irrigation rights within CID and up to 11,000 acres within PVACD
• Augmentation pumping up to 35,000 AFY, but not more than 100,000 AF during each 5-year accounting period
• Use CID water allocated to ISC lands for reallocation to CID farmers and for state line delivery
7,488
4,498
11,986
12
2
14
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
PVACD CID Total
Ac
res
Acreage Yet To Be Negotiated
Acreage Purchased
Target = 7,500
Target = 4,500
ISC Pecos Settlement Land/Water Acquisitions: December 2009
Target = 12,000
Augmentation Pumping Capacity
10,000
4,0001,750
15,750
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Seven Rivers Well Field
Lake Arthur Pipeline
Hagerman Canal
Total Capacity (AF/Y)
Cap
acit
y (a
cre-
feet
/yea
r)
Target = 10,000
Target = 4,000
Target = 15,750
Target = 1,750
Pecos Settlement Implemented
On June 11, 2009 Pecos Settlement Parties Jointly Declared “that the Conditions Precedent required for implementation of the Settlement Agreement have been sufficiently satisfied such that the Settlement Parties agree that the settlement terms should now be implemented”
Augmentation Well Fields
Lake Arthur Well Field
• 5 wells• Original capacity 7,900 gpm• Design capacity 10,000 gpm
Well Name
Well Depth (ft bgl)
Depth to Water (ft bgl)
HP Transmissivity (ft2/day)
Design Capacity
(gpm)
Total Dissolved
Solids (mg/L)
B 808 56.1 300 6,520 2,500 1,772
C 763 23.4 250 6,800 2,500 2,418
E 1,004 25.1 150 1,200 1,000 2,203
G 637 32.8 250 16,100 to 16,500 3,000 2,300
H 803 59.1 200 20,500 2,500 1,948
I 692 65.7 200 19,000 2,500 1,898
J 743 87.3 200 28,000 1,500 1,900
K 803 118.1 200 22,600 1,300 1,287
L 693 76.9 200 16,100 2,200 2,000
Q 992 8.3 250 590 1,000 2,960
7-Rivers Well Summary
Settlement Benefits to the ISC
• On average, an additional 9,400 AFY is delivered to the state line
• A mechanism is in place to deliver additional water to the state line within a short period of time if there is ever a net shortfall
• Potential to build a delivery credit of 115,000 AF
Practical Aspects of Settlement
Implementation• Augmentation pumping is required
according to Settlement schedule• Seven Rivers pumping cost ≈ $60/acre-
foot• Estimated “average” annual
augmentation pumping about 12,000 acre-feet/year
• “Average” annual ISC pumping cost roughly $700,000/year– Electricity + O&M
Where Are We This Year?
• Current Augmentation Pumping Rates:– Seven Rivers – 17,400 gpm or 39 cfs
• ISC has pumped over 11,500 acre-feet of water since March 1st to augment CID’s supply
• Due to large net credit no pumping for Texas this year
Where Are We This Year?
• 2011 is the driest year on record in the Pecos Basin
• Augmentation pumping cannot replace lack of natural river flow
• Likely to end year with annual Pecos Compact deficit
• NM will maintain net credit – current net credit is 99,600 acre-feet
Endangered Species Act Issues
Endangered Species Act Issues
• Many ESA and other environmental issues on Pecos River
• Primary water management threat is the Federally threatened Pecos bluntnose shiner
• Principal challenge is meeting mandated minimum flows, especially in consecutive drought years
Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Management Challenges
• Avoiding river intermittency in critical habitat reaches–Ensure the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Biological Opinion flow requirements are met (35 cfs Below Taiban gage, wet at Acme gage)
• Violating BO could have significant negative ramifications
ISC’s Role in PBNS Management
• Vaughan Conservation Pipeline near Fort Sumner– Supply the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
roughly 1,500 AF/Y as needed (up to ≈ 13 cfs)
– Provides water to river at top of critical habitat reach
– Important tool for compliance
PBNS Status in 2011• Due to extraordinary drought
– River intermittency has occurred over portion of critical habitat
– Despite enormous effort by Reclamation to acquire additional water• options extremely limited
– Agencies working collaboratively to protect as much habitat as possible• prepare for second consecutive dry
year
Vaughan Pipeline Outfall
Vaughan Pipeline Discharge
Pecos Salinity Efforts
• New Mexico has long supported efforts to reduce Pecos salinity:– Malaga Bend well pumping in River Master Manual
(currently Southwest Salt)– Ongoing support for WRDA
• annual letters to delegation asking for support• Memorials passed by State Legislature
– Ongoing water quality monitoring from augmentation well fields
• WRDA support on Rio Grande– Provided initial seed money ($250K) to initiate the § 729
activities by the ACOE
Triggers for Well Field Operation
(in terms of Project supply available to CID)
• March 1 50,000 AF (Determined Nov 1)• May 1 60,000 AF (Determined Mar 1)• June 1 65,000 AF (Determined May 1)• July 15 75,000 AF (Determined Jun 1)• September 1 90,000 AF (Determined Jul 15)
Where Are We This Year?
Projection Date Target Date
Target Supply (AF)
Supply on Target Date
(AF)
Required Pumping
(AF)
Supply on Target
Date (AF)Required
Pumping (AF)November 1 March 1 50,000 55,516 0 53,659 0
March 1 May 1 60,000 74,918 0 52,475 7,525May 1 June 1 65,000 90,163 0 51,180 13,820June 1 July 15 75,000 98,228 0 53,977* 21,023July 15 September 1 90,000 113,415 0 49,371 40,629**
Pecos Settlement Augmentation Triggers 2010 2011
Information for this table was taken from pages 11 and 12 of the Settlement Agreement*Value used for projection and supply from July 5 instead of July 15 due to ongoing block release** Value is larger than maximum pumping allowed by Settlement of 35,000 AF in one year